I've seen plenty of consolidations that worked out... but, then, I tend to see them where I'm following companies with proven management that aren't being forced into doing consolidations only because their plans aren't working, or aren't workable...
A consolidation can fix some issues in capital structure, when they have already clearly enough been realized by the market... but it won't fix management problems... and if the need you have is one created and driven by management issues, not by other factors in competition, or the markets, that a consolidation might help to fix ?
A consolidation won't "technically" alter the value of what you own... but, the reason most consolidations occur are in PREPARATION for major accelerations in dilution... which very often are of the "rinse and repeat" variety. So, the market is rightly leary of any reverse... since a reverse is always a defacto recognition of a market reversal that has already occurred... and, given the need once, it is likely to occur again. Dilution naturally gets a bad name, too... but, if "dilution" in the share count is funding the addition of more value than is being lost by selling ever larger percentages for less money over time... then, dilution is a good thing... if it means being able to succeed, versus not, or being able to succeed faster, bigger, etc., than would occur otherwise. But, if you can't show how adding more money makes success happen ?
Can you make the case, here, that throwing more money at the situation that exists is likely to make it "work" any better in the future than it has "worked" thus far ? Or, any faster ?
The analysis matters only in terms of decisions or timing re your own situation. The company, if it intends to keep doing "more of the same"... has to find a way to sustain its burn rate and the pace of operations... and you can't burn cash you don't have. So, they will. Either they'll stop burning cash at the same rate... or they'll dilute... as those are the only two options. "We don't want to do that" isn't the right answer. The question isn't one of what anyone "wants" to have happen... but one of what must and will happen, given reality and the priorities... making the right question one of "which matters more": sustaining the burn rate and "trying again"... or "waiting for change in existing projects while holding the line on dilution"?
This management has not yet shown any awareness of or sensitivity to market realities... so it seems obvious that makes it more likely "more of the same" will require dilution... since we've not seem them show they know how to manage a throttle...
|
